Patna High Court

Chulbul Pandey @ Manish KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 12 March 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Chulbul Pandey (alias Manish Kumar), was implicated in a case (PS. Case No. 507 of 2024) involving offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleged to have made threatening calls demanding ransom and participated in indiscriminate firing at an informant's house. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated, asserted that no one was injured, and highlighted that a co-accused had already been granted regular bail. The State opposed the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The court considered the nature of the accusations, the lack of injury, the existence of prior criminal records, and the fact that bail had been granted to another accused. Concluding that the petitioner’s antecedents and the gravity of the alleged offences warranted denial of bail, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the alleged offences and his criminal antecedents

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 387, 504, 506

Subjects

anticipatory bail
false implication
criminal antecedent
IPC
Arms Act
threatening calls
ransom demand
indiscriminate firing
bail denial

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13701 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-507 Year-2024 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Chulbul Pandey @ Manish Kumar Son of Ramji Das @ Ramji Jha @ Ramjit
                 Das Resident of Village- Bhadeja, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Gaya

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Priya Ranjan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   12-03-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                               2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 507 of 2024, instituted for the

                   offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 387, 307, 504 and 506 of

                   the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                               3. Prosecution case, in short, is that petitioner along

                   with co-accused Shrawan Choudhary made threatening calls to

                   the informant and demanded ransom. On the alleged date of

                   occurrence, 30-40 accused persons including the petitioner came

                   at the informant’s house and made indiscriminate firing.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

                   petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.

                   Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13701 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
                                                       2/2




                     omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. He

                     further submitted that there is no injury on the informant or any

                     family member of the informant despite being the allegation that

                     there was indiscriminate firing on the house of the informant.

                     Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that other co-

                     accused has been granted regular bail by this Bench vide order

                     dated 20.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8934 of 2025. It has

                     been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has

                     five criminal antecedents.

                                 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

                     opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. He further

                     submitted that petitioner and other co-accused have made

                     threatening calls to the informant and demanded ransom.

                                  6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                     of the case as well as criminal antecedent of the petitioner, this

                     Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                                  7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory

                     bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…